Nasa

BONED.com

>Assuming their 20 billion budget is doubled what can we expect for those money?
Anything is possible! Perhaps even a flight!

The only thing SpaceX has shown everyone is how they are one of the most dishonest companies in the history of private space travel. Seriously each launch following the Falcon family as they “revolutionize the launch industry” has been indistinguishable from the rest. Aside from the meme landings, the company’s only party trick has been to overwork and underpay its employees to reduce launch costs, all to make the mythical “full and rapid reuse” seem effective.

Perhaps the die was cast when Musk vetoed the idea of ambitious yet realistic missions like Red and Grey Dragon; he made sure the company would never be mistaken for an innovative force to anything or anybody, just ridiculously questionable government contracts for his companies. SpaceX might be profitable (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-NASA in its refusal of wonder, science and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the landings are cool though
"No!"
The camerawork is dreadful; the landings of the charred boosters are boring. As I watch, I noticed that every time a Falcon 9 lands, Musk said either “self-sustaining civilization on Mars” or “imagine if you had a 747 and you threw it away after one flight.”

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time one of those phrases was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Musk's mind is so governed by clichés that he has no other style of thinking. Later I read a poorly-written news story on SpaceX by some fat web blogger. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are watching these launches now, surely they will work for SpaceX in the future and they too can have paychecks based off of government handouts." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you are a SpaceX fan, you are, in fact, trained to be a mindless supporter of government-funded billionaires.

Sure it could be saved

But is it realistic to expect 75% of the poeple who work at NASA to be fired & replaced?
Is it realistic for them to dump almost all their overpaid contractors? Is it realistic to expect lynchings of bureaucrats ?

Nope

The most likely turn out is that white civilization will simply end, as if it never existed, as our race & genetics vanish from the Earth

Then 50 years from now the Chinks will destroy all their space ships/rockets, never leaving their country again.

With additional 20 billion dollars NASA will be able to form a special commission tasked with the goal of finding out what can be done with additional 20 billion dollars.

50 years and we cant even match let alone exceed that size.
As time goes on it seems we are either under a spell of incompetence or large scale occupancy of space just doesn't comply with economic and physical reality.

>Government funded

Kinda like ULA?

Space X is competition. Competition is good.

SpaceX is a sad excuse for an eccentric billionaire's personal playpen.

>replying to pasta
>reddit spacing

Blue Origin is a sad excuse for an eccentric billionaire's personal playpen.

>hydrogen on the first
full retard

It is though.

>its maller therfore a back step
Were your parent related, like, before theyh were married?

Unless you're doing some cute space elevator shit, at some point, the rocket needs to get bigger to hold more stuff.

Like we need to get to cruise ship size at some point for a feasible space economy. At some point these things need to get physically bigger.

To save nasa? Contract out all the heavy lifting.
Let nasa focus on exploration.
In the case of manned operations.
NASA can operate past Leo
On ships lifted on commercial rockets

Of course that’s NASA, the US military should have its own fleet of vehicles

>Blue Origin
All privately funded

>SpaceX
All paid for by $10 billion in government contracts

How come nobody gets this.
I caught the bait and then laughed my ass off.

NASA has left the launch market. The SLS is the only rocket they're working on and will be their only rocket once it finishes. The only reason they're working on it is because Super Heavy Lifters are extremely expensive to both develop and operate. They are inherently unprofitable so NASA has to make it themselves because no company in their right mind would.

>no company in their right mind would.
except the bfr which is based on proven principles
would cost less than 45000 times less to develop and is much higher better of all goodnes

>would cost less than 45000 times less to develop
BFR is being developed for $1 million?

You must be an eternal pessimist. Oh, there's no fooling you.

I'm a welder for SpaceX. I don't mind the pay or the hours at all. The mission is worth everything.

But please, tell us all why we're not impressing you. Surely you can do better.

More memedrives

>BFR
Nice meme.

>I'm a welder for SpaceX
Prove it, faggot.

>I don't mind the pay or the hours at all. The mission is worth everything.
Exactly. When you put in twice the hours, the overhead cost of things like medical insurance can be essentially halved. It's a sick practice especially when it's justified by "we're doing something important though :)."

>The mission.
wew nice brainwashing

I don't work "twice the hours" and my medical insurance isn't a factor. Try harder.

Hey, why did NASA forget to put the cargo capacity of the Saturn V on this infographic?

BFR and New Armstrong will probably both be hauling 150 ton payloads into orbit for $10 million a flight before Block II SLS ever has its first launch

And if that happens somebody at NASA should commit seppeku

Prove that you work at SpaceX, faggot, or shut your whore mouth.

Nice
Meme

>Can NASA be saved?
pic says no

Replace it with Vostok, Voskhod, N-1, Buran, Kliper and Federation and you get Russian space program in nutshell.

At least the Russians have the sense to keep making their best 1960s rockets forever

Imagine if NASA took the exact amount of money spent on the Space Shuttle program and instead just did 200 to 300 Saturn V launches with it

the issue is that saturn V wasn't as flexible as the shuttle for the missions wanted to do, it was just a great heavy lift rocket

Nixon thought spaceplanes were cool, public and senate too because of muh Star Trek and Star Wars, they renamed first article Enterprise.

If old nazis from NASA had budget we could have colony on Mars by 2000.
youtube.com/watch?v=YPYYw8Qcy-o

Real life is happening outside, you just aren't there to see it.

Stop being a victim and drama queen.

No, the explicit justification for the shuttle was cost savings, not mission versatility. When you consider the capabilities demonstrated by Gemini, Apollo, and Skylab, the shuttle was a clear step down in versatility, and a step up in cost.

we'd have a colony on mars by the 80's if they didn't gimp the budget

>if they didn't gimp the budget
Yo:
The NASA budget was way too much government money to continue for long to be spent on actually getting things done. When you're starting up an agency, you begin by hiring only the people you need. The real problem begins when you don't fire them as you stop needing them. Then they start hiring other people you don't need, including ones whose specific skill set is in lying to you about who you need. Soon the whole thing is a farce. That's the truth behind the Apollo-Shuttle transition.

To get results after Apollo, they needed to shut the whole thing down, fire everyone and start over, hiring only the people they needed for the next thing, not throw more money into the all-consuming maw.

This image describes exactly what my grampa told me about the government agency he worked in (not murrica and not spaceflight related). Fascinating. If this phenomenon is known why is it ignored?

It's just the way of all businesses. The only difference is it's much harder to kill off a government program than a private company. Private companies get restructured or implode if they don't produce profits.

The money doesn't run out for government agencies until politics intercede. Civil servants have a lot of rights too, far more than other workers.

t. Civil Servant that works in a government lab

To much money for to many pockets!

NASA? Only if a future US administration gave two shits about it.

Bump

>Blue Origin all privately funded

"Blue Origin has also completed work for NASA on several small development contracts, receiving total funding of US$25.7 million by 2013. As of April 2017, Bezos is selling approximately US$1 billion in Amazon stock each year to privately finance Blue Origin."

Umm no sweetie, they get loads of government gibs from both NASA and the airforce, mainly because Vulcan (ULA's next rocket) is powered by their BE-4 engine.

>receiving total funding of US$25.7 million by 2013
So they received about 0.01% of the same funding that SpaceX did.

Can you read? It says by 2013, I'm pretty sure it's a lot more by now. Also: "The Air Force in March 2016 awarded more than $160 million in cost-sharing contracts to Aerojet Rocketdyne and a ULA-Blue Origin partnership for development of competing main-stage rocket engines. Aerojet received $115 million to help fund development of its AR1 kerosene-fueled engine while ULA received $46.6 million to help fund development of Blue Origin’s BE-4 methane-fueled engine."

>"The Air Force in March 2016 awarded more than $160 million in cost-sharing contracts to Aerojet Rocketdyne and a ULA-Blue Origin partnership for development of competing main-stage rocket engines. Aerojet received $115 million to help fund development of its AR1 kerosene-fueled engine while ULA received $46.6 million to help fund development of Blue Origin’s BE-4 methane-fueled engine."
That funding for BE-4 was literally recently revoked thanks to AJR lobbying

That doesn't change the fact that Blue Origin are not a fully privately funded company as some like to portray them as, and despite currently being unable to actually provide service as a launch provider unlike SpaceX they are still receiving millions of dollars worth of government subsidies.

SpaceX is 90% government-sponsored and Blue Origin is 0.5% government-sponsored. Only a complete dumbass thinks this is the same thing.

>shuttle
>flexible

The shuttle was a fucking dumpster fire. A cool looking dumpster fire at least.

sorry, I meant "flaxible"

NASA needs to build a cycler for manned mars travel.

It failed so hard that it never even was, all that is had done just ceased to exist

youtube.com/watch?v=8GFfbsOaZc0

...

>Will it ever secure consistent funding or guidance?
The "guidance" is two thireds of the issue. If NASA wasn't given entirely different goals every few years they might actually accomplish something, rather than just funnelling endless funding into contractors.

can't decide what's more pathetic and ignorant, NASA haters or SpaceX haters

The government wants to put stuff into orbit,so they pay Spacex to do it.

How is this bad or nefarious?

...

not a fanboy, im just informed

That's pretty funny and I'm quite fond of New Space in general and of SpaceX in particular. It does attract the whole IFLS crowd of obnoxious fucks who know nothing about the industry and all its complexities, the type of people to suddenly bring up the emdrive like it works or talk about wormholes like they're not blatantly in violation of causality and general common sense. But come on now,SpaceX's failure rate now is about average for the industry as they essentially use test rockets to launch payloads, and they have impressively cut costs over the last few years, which has driven the other launch providers to attempt cost-cutting and partial recovery plans like SMARt to get back engines after launches. They're a good thing.

Found the Orbital ATK employee.

Which congressional district do you represent?

>>SpaceX
>All paid for by $10 billion in government contracts

except for CRS7, all successfully delivered

One that's not getting enough por-oh sorry, "work contracts".

The rest of the country that isn't commiefornia, texas or florida.

I’m glad someone got that.

Is this some kind of new pasta?

See Commercial Crew Program.

NASA can contract out their (arbitrary derived to rationalize SLS) "unprofitable" requirements to competed firms who build and continue to operate systems to meet NASA's criteria.

NASA can commission firms to build vehicles for the roles SLS would do.

NASA did just that in the commercial crew program. They commissioned new vehicles and paid SpaceX and Boeing to create them and operate them.

And people get fired if they announce they are way behind schedule

Imagine if some people pulled the shit that NASA did with constellation, 5-6 years into the program finally admitting that they couldn't do it, that they didn't even have plans to do it, that they hadn't fucking DONE ANYTHING to the cost of billions..

Commercial crew program is a fucking disaster of endless billions spent on nothing
They have been deliberately stalling for years

NASA doesn't need saving, only reform specifically to the more mundane administrative tasks. Jim Birdenstine championed this via the American Space Renaissance Act, and is why Trump selected him to be the NASA Director. Democrats don't want to confirm him because he once said climate change wasn't man made.

go away /pol/

>Democrats don't want to put a person willing to deny science for the sake of politics in charge of an important group of scientists.

>(arbitrary derived to rationalize SLS)

Resupply is arbitrary, flagship missions aren't.

>NASA can commission firms to build vehicles for the roles SLS would do.

No because then NASA is doing things exactly like the Air Force, an entity that wastes almost as much money as the Navy. Seriously STOP AND THINK about what you just said. NASA would have to put out each contract to bid and then politely wait for the private industry to provide. The private industry will then provide the shittiest option meeting the lowest standards so they can get the lowest cost, then the mission itself is compromised because it can't meet all it's objectives without selecting higher cost options, which is not allowed without explicit legislative approval. Much in the same manner as NASA does things currently, but with private companies making all the decisions and not engineers.

Your idea doesn't work. All it would do is cause stagnation because private firms are risk-adverse and will not innovate. NASA would stop at LEO because the private market won't jury rig together a way to go elsewhere. But even then that wouldn't work because NASA is ending the ISS in 2024, meaning there'd be no manned LEO missions either. Manned spaceflight simply ends as cheaper private vehicles take over.

He's able to lean on Republicans and get money for NASA as a whole, as well as implement reforms which would make NASA operate more efficiently and more transparently. Democrats don't like this because they are blinded by ideology.

I don't even disagree with the dislike over his position, but he's already walked most of it back and denying him now is just petty and ideology-driven.

This.

The rapidly decreasing launch costs are the bane of spaceflight.
If there is no political will to salvage the situation with decisive action we will witness the greatest loss for all of humanity.
We can't allow it.

Not just costs, but time ! Imagine if people were launching payloads 6 months after starting construction of them...
We all know it takes at least 15 years of budget to produce a proper probe!

Dems are more responsible for the current state of NASA th an anyone else
Hell, what do you think these NASA government bureaucrats vote for

They love their unaccountable criminal bureaucracies

Obviously at this point the Dems want to stonewall everything for the next 7 years

Utter insanity.
I do not wish to even imagine the impact on employment, let alone the one on science.

9560915
>a genuine paid shill

its actually pretty old one

The Commercial capsules are being put into space on top of rockets, that regularly launch comercial payloads into orbit, there's no comercial payload for a super heavy lifter. That's not even getting into the massive costs and experience required to make a massive rocket. I know SpaceX has brainwashed people into thinking that creating massive rockets is an easy peasy thing that anyone can do, but they're retarded.

>Can NASA be saved?

Yes, in 2022 when the orange president will be (bad) history.

It's tailored from a Veeky Forums or /tv/ meme about bad writing.

>the only people in the world who actually have an operational super-heavy launch vehicle don't know what they're talking about

>what is reading comprehension
>what is proving the user's point almost immediately

The iss was shut down early because its all fake

>more launches last year than any other organization on the planet, with a rocket larger than most that can also land the first stage

k